How live export pain could have been avoided

Recently, it was announced that the federal government would provide a one-off $21.6 million payment to the Disney Corporation to attract the filming of the Hollywood movie 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to Australia.

However, this generosity shown by the Gillard government to this already profitable, multinational behemoth is farcical when compared to the $30 million business assistance package offered to the entire live export industry as a result of the suspension of trade in June 2011.

The maximum sum available to affected industry participants was $20,000, a truly derisory amount when you consider
Australian Agricultural Company Ltd
has recently revealed the ban has contributed to approximately $51.2 million in property write-downs and lost profits.

The enormous pain and suffering the industry has experienced since the imposition of the ban could have been avoided if Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Joe Ludwig
had consulted more widely and shown more moral fibre when confronted by the "squeaky wheel" politics of the animal welfare lobby.

Questions also need to be asked about the ongoing regulatory role of the
RSPCA
in handling matters relating to animal cruelty, and the fact that it is one of the few non-governmental bodies that has an investigatory and prosecutions role.

The RSPCA has made it very clear it is opposed to the live export trade and, of course, it is entitled to do so. However, surely this opens the discussion as to whether it can continue to act in its prosecutorial role, and casts doubt over its ability to remain objective in relation to the assessment of primary production animals given this opposition.

RSPCA damaging its brand

The RSPCA’s criticism of the industry is becoming so rabid it is doing great damage to its brand. A recent example of the typical misrepresentation by the RSPCA in relation to live export was a press release issued after the release of a DAFF report into a complaint about animal handling practices at an Israeli abattoir.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

The DAFF report revealed that the breaches in question had occurred prior to the first consignment of cattle exported to Israel under the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System. Further, and critically, the exporter that was the subject of the complaint provided information to DAFF confirming the cattle in question were not part of the exporter’s consignment, i.e. the exporter had nothing to do with the cattle.

Despite the obvious lack of nexus between the exporter and the cattle, the RSPCA trumpeted the "failings of ESCAS and the auditing system used to implement it". It is exactly this sort of sensationalism and misleading reporting that is causing people to reconsider their attitude towards the animal welfare group.

Critically, the oft-repeated cherry by the RSPCA is that they are speaking for the wider community in seeking to have the live export trade shut down. However, the National Farmers’ Federation in November 2012 commissioned an independent research body to undertake 1000 interviews regarding people’s attitudes towards the live export industry. Overall, 69 per cent of respondents supported the continuation of the trade working with industry to ensure continuous animal welfare improvements, while 21 per cent opposed the trade.

The survey also asked respondents whether they would be pleased or concerned if their federal MP supported a ban of the trade, and 60 per cent of respondents said that they would be concerned, whereas only 22 per cent said they would be pleased with such action.

Given the current drought conditions and a high Australian dollar, the debilitating effect of the live export ban is now hurting northern producers and economic development in the region more than ever.

Few would have thought a number of years ago that our own government would take such a guiding hand in the destruction of a profitable industry – a cautionary tale that once only Walt Disney himself could conjure.